As you may have guessed from my question of a couple of weeks ago,
I am looking of questions of determinism and whether what happens
on the particle level is pre-determined or if the human mind
actually intervene on the atomic level. Well, in some sense we
know that it can. When I decide to move my arm there is a first
atom that moves and I must be moving that with my mind. Now
whether that decision was predetermined is another issue.

I guess there are breeds of determinism. Each is actually a
different level of determinism, which we could call Eeny-Meeny
determinism, Chutes-and-Ladders determinism, and Go-Fish
determinism. Each of these games illustrates one of the levels of
determinism.

When we were kids we sat in a circle and went "Eeny-meeny-miney-
moe. Catch-a-tiger-by-the-toe. If-he-hollers-let-him-go. Eeny-
meeny-miney-moe. My-mother-said-to-pick-this-very-ONE." The
person who was pointed to at the end was chosen. That looked to
my little kid's eyes as a sort of random choice. Of course, from
the beginning it was determined who would be chosen. He would be
the 24th person pointed to. There was no strategy involved.
Eeny-Meeny is strong determinism. (As an aside, those were the
words we used and we knew nothing about the racist version of the
same chant. It did strike me odd that a tiger could holler, but I
wasn't as into asking questions then as I am now.)

Then we played Chutes-and-Ladders. You rolled a pair of dice and
they told you where to put your piece. Went the indicated number
of squares forward and it much have a ladder that would advance
you further or a chute that sent you back. The winner was not
determined at the beginning, but there was not really a strategy
or any free will either. Chutes-and-Ladders is a sort of weak
determinism.

Then there was Go-Fish, a card game. The order of the cards after
the shuffle made a big difference, but you also had the choice to
play one way or the other and it would affect the outcome. This
is more an example of non-determinism.

I think people feel intuitively that the model of the Universe is
Go-Fish. I decide when to move my arm and can move it. I decided
to marry Evelyn. If I had not, it would have made all the
difference. It feels like I had free will. But it is not
entirely clear I could have made any other choice. Here I was a
callow but inexperienced naif. An attractive young woman was
throwing herself at me. What am I likely to do? What I thought
was free will may well have been just doing what I was programmed
to do.

Quantum physics leans toward the Chutes-and-Ladders level of
determinism. But because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
you will never be able to distinguish Chutes-and-Ladders from
Eeny-Meeny.

Einstein said God does not play dice with the Universe. Stephen
Hawking says He not only does play dice, but He throws the dice
where they cannot be seen. But the outcome of the throws might be
predetermined. Heisenberg says we cannot see enough to know.
This question of determinism versus chance is and old one.
Classic fantasy writer Lord Dunsany begins his THE GODS OF PEGANA,
a sort of a fantasy creation myth, with the passage:

"In the mists before the Beginning, Fate and Chance cast lots to
decide whose the Game should be; and he that won strode through
the mists to MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI and said: 'Now make gods for Me, for
I have won the cast and the Game is to be Mine.' Who it was that
won the cast, and whether it was Fate or whether Chance that went
through the mists before the Beginning to MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI -- none
knoweth.'

Dunsany may be nearer the scientific truth than he could have
known. We won't know which and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
says we cannot ever know. As an aside, Heisenberg does NOT say we
cannot observe something without affecting it as people often
erroneously interpret it. What it says is that there are limits
to observability and measurability. We cannot observe atomic
particles closely enough to see if they operate by chance or if
their movements are predetermined.

I always believed in an Eeny-Meeny Universe because I see the
atomic level as having particles careening off each other like
billiard balls. There was no way I could see that we could stop
these particles from their predestined course. But because my
mind can move the atoms of my arm, I realize I do have some
control on the atomic level.

If our minds can manipulate matter on the particle level, I have
less faith that what is happening on the atomic level is purely
mechanistic and predetermined. What is happening on the billiard
table may not be purely mechanistic if I can put in my hand and
redirect a ball. Maybe I am also redirecting my mind. If I
really can redirect some matter with my mind, there is some
possibility for a Go-Fish Universe after all. [-mrl]

In the 12/03/04 issue, Mark wrote about the upcoming miniseries
RENE LEVESQUE, saying, "This is a miniseries being made for
television in Canada about Levesque the founder of the Parti
Quebecois political party and the Prime Minister of Quebec."

Frank Leisti wrote to say, "As a Canadian citizen (still after 25
years here in the USA), I wish to point out that there is only one
Prime Minister and that person is over all of Canada. For each
province, of which Quebec is one of, the leader for the province
is called a Premier, not a Prime Minister."

However, Mark notes that Wikipedia says, "The Premier of Quebec
(in French Premier ministre du Quebec, sometimes literally
translated to Prime Minister of Quebec) is the first minister for
the Canadian province of Quebec. The Premier is the province's
head of government and de facto chief executive." Marks adds,
"Technically his title is 'Premier Ministre', but that can be
translated more than one way. Google lists 969 pages that refer
to the Prime Minister of Quebec."

In his review of ALEXANDER, Mark wrote, "Just why they have Val Kilmer
affecting an Irish accent to play an ancient Macedonian is beyond me to
know."

Fred Lerner responded, "There's an old tradition in translating Greek
plays of using Scottish, Welsh, etc accents to represent regional Greek
accents occurring in the original. Perhaps the film is following in
this tradition." Asked for more information, he adds, "I don't know
more about this. I remember remarking on this when I read Aristophanes
in my freshman year in college. (In Jack Lindsay's translation of
'Lysistrata', a Scottish accent was used to represent the speech of the
lascivious Spartan Lampito. I asked the instructor if this reflected a
characteristic associated with Scots -- forgetting for the moment that
he was named Angus Fletcher...) Moses Hadas says nothing about it in
his introduction to 'The Complete Plays of Aristophanes'." [-fl]

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
by J. K. Rowling
(copyright 2003; New York Listening Library; 23 CDs; 26 hours, 30
minutes; performance by Jim Dale; ISBN 0-807-22029-9) (audio book
review by Joe Karpierz):

When I found myself employed at a job which would require a
commute of an hour or more one way every day, I decided that the
only way to catch up on my reading would be to listen to some
audio books in the car. My daughter had been hounding me to read
ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, and while I wanted to do so, I have been so
tired of massive doorstop novels (see my review of the recent
"Dune" books) that I dreaded the idea of picking up the latest
Harry Potter installment. The commute and the audio book gave me
the perfect opportunity to borrow the audio book from the library
and get started.

Any review of an audio book must have two parts: the review of the
book, and the review of the reader's performance. So, I'll start
with the review of the book.

The novel follows Harry and the gang through their fifth year at
Hogwarts. The fifth year is no ordinary year, as it is the year
that the students sit their O.W.L. exams - the Ordinary Wizarding
Levels. The results of their O.W.L.'s will go a long way in
telling what careers the students will embark upon after they
leave Hogwarts (oh yeah, seventh year students sit the
N.E.W.T.'s--I asked my daughter what that stood for, and even she
isn't sure.

Harry Potter is fifteen now, and of course the hormones are raging
and the body and emotions are undergoing all sorts of changes. To
her credit, Rowling does not shy away from this aspect of Harry's
character development. We see Harry's short-fused temper on any
number of occasions, as well as his struggles with his feeling for
Cho Chang and how she acts toward him. We see his resentment
toward other people when he feels he has been wronged, and we see
the sudden emotional swings as well. In short, Harry is a typical
teenage boy, and that theme runs throughout the entire book.

The story starts out with Harry back with the Dursleys, as usual,
trying to get through another summer, but this time waiting for
news of Voldemort coming out into the open, as Harry saw him
return at the end of GOBLET OF FIRE. He and his cousin are
attacked by Dementors, right out in the open in muggle land.
Harry uses magic to drive them off, and of course this gets him in
trouble with the Ministry of Magic.

Meanwhile, the Ministry is trying to discredit Harry and Professor
Dumbledore, saying that Voldemort is not back, and that Harry and
Dumbledore are fabricating stories. There is a movement afoot to
get Dumbledore out of Hogwarts, let by the head of the Ministry
and by Professor Umbrage, who is a very hateful and conniving
woman.

The story then follows the standard path of the school year, with
all the usual twists and turns and surprises and revelations that
we have come to expect from a Harry Potter novel. If I were to
start even the briefest outline here, this review would go on for
ages. The final big revelation at the end from Dumbledore to
Potter is the one that is most intriguing, and those who have read
the book already know what it is, and I'll leave the discovery of
it to those who haven't read it yet.

All in all, a nice light story. Lots of fluff, and lots of good
stuff for the kids and HP fans in general. Rowling does a decent
job of flushing out the characters, having them all grow into
teenagerhood and all the baggage that comes with that. She also
does a decent job of growing the mythos around Hogwarts and all
that surrounds it. My complaint is that it was too long--again.
The HP novels continue to get longer and longer, and there is a
major feeling of padding to it, although I have to admit that
Rowling tied it all together at the end. I believe the book
itself was some 800+ pages long, and it could have been less.

Anyway, a nice story, but nothing to write home about. It's too
late to stop reading the HP stuff now, with only two to go, but it
wouldn't have been the end of the world if I'd skipped it and
gotten the summary from my daughter.

As to the performance by Jim Dale--it was outstanding. Mr. Dale
reads all the parts, and changes voices with each character in
stride during the reading. That had to have been a difficult
thing to do in scenes that had a half dozen characters or more.
And his interpretations sounded right for each character. I was
never jarred into thinking that a particular character wouldn't
have sounded the way he read it. In fact, there were times that
Mr. Dale's reading was the *only* thing that kept me going through
some very rough patches. He was excellent.

CAPSULE: This moving dramatization of the true story of how one
man saved the lives of 1200 people marked for genocide is
certainly one of the best films of the year. This is a film that
shows humanity at its best and at its worst. Rating: high +3 (-4
to +4) or 9/10

The Rwandan people are composed largely of two tribes: the Hutus
and the Tutsis. When the Belgians ran the country they gave most
of the political power to the Tutsis. After they left the enmity
of the Hutus boiled over and some powerful Hutus wanted to rid the
country and the world of Tutsis. The president of Rwanda, who
wanted to make peace between the Hutus and the Tutsis, is murdered
and the Tutsis are blamed. It is used as an excuse to start
racial purification. In a reign of terror the Hutu military
attempted to murder all Tutsis. People were commonly being
machine-gunned on the street. Families were murdered in their
houses.

HOTEL RWANDA tells the true story of one man whose courage and
intelligence saved the lives of over a thousand Tutsis. Caught up
in this upheaval and massacre was the Hutu Paul Rusesabagina. He
was the manager of the Hotel Milles Collines, before the outbreak
the posh international hotel in Kigali. Though he professes
loyalty to his family alone, the manager gives a few Tutsis refuge
in his hotel. Well, one thing kind of leads to another, doesn't
it? Rusesabagina was one of the great modern heroes. He saved
the lives of 1200 people at great risk to his own.

Terry George directs the drama starring Don Cheadle as
Rusesabagina. Nick Nolte has a very much smaller role as a United
Nations peacekeeper from Canada. Rusesabagina desperately hopes
for an international intervention, but soon it is clear none will
come. (The UN has are peaceKEEPERS not peaceMAKERS, as Nolte's
character points out cynically.) Britain and the United States
have no interests in getting involved. France is supplying the
Hutus.

HOTEL RWANDA is a film of epic proportions that puts a human face
on the disaster. One possible complaint is that it is a little
too much like THE KILLING FIELDS. That film, released twenty
years ago, was the best film I saw in the 1980s. Saying HOTEL
RWANDA is a lot like it is not entirely a complaint. The film is
also a good introduction to the Rwanda Genocide for people who
like me knew less than we should. It also raises important
questions at a time when many Americans want to see our country
intervening less on the world stage. The film suggests the price
that policy can cost. (Interestingly I saw this film at its world
premiere attended by Michael Moore--who might have interesting
perspectives on the film--and also by Paul Rusesabagina.) [-mrl]

CAPSULE: Emotional drama based on the life of a great composer of
music for the ranad, the Thai wooden xylophone. We see in
parallel how he overcame his personal devils to rise to greatness
and how he courageously used that greatness in the cause of
preserving classical Thai music. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10

The Thai film THE OVERTURE was inspired by the life of Luang
Pradit Phairao, one of the great composers and players of the
ranad-ek. The ranad is a large wooden xylophone held together by
strings and hung from a rack. The character based on Luang is
here called Sorn and played by Anuchit Saphanphong. The film
starts with Sorn on his deathbed and then flashes to his early
youth where he learns his instrument. Then the film forks to the
stories of the two great victories of Sorn's life. One victory
was as a young man overcoming his fear of competition. The other
victory was as a master overcoming political obstacles by the Thai
government. The film flashes back and forth from one story to the
other.

As a boy Sorn first had to overcome the resistance of his father
to his interest in music. Sorn's older brother is killed in a
fight over music competitions and Sorn's father does not want to
see the incident repeated. Sorn develops as a great musician but
he lives in fear of the time he must compete against a phenomenal
musician he once heard. Later a Thai government bent on
modernization suppresses his music.

One problem the film may have with Western audiences is that Ranad
music is just not familiar. That would not be a problem since the
music is agreeable enough, but the film assumes the viewer will
know the difference between merely good ranad music and really
great ranad music. The nuances will likely go right over
westerners' heads. But the drama will not. The film probably
loses some of its effect when it is brought to a Western culture,
but it is still captivating.

Occasionally director Ittisoontorn Vichailak goes in for hyperbole
as in one seen in which one musical piece is played so frenetic it
literally plays up a storm. Sorn's chief rival seems a dark enemy
with a little Darth Vader in him.

The film (and Sorn) calls for Thailand to protect its musical
roots in the face of modernization. [-mrl]

John Allen Paulos wrote A MATHEMATICIAN PLAYS THE STOCK MARKET
(ISBN 0-465-05481-1) after he lost a lot of money (he never says
exactly how much) on WorldCom stock. Paulos talks about various
"philosophies" about how the stock market works, and what
strategies (if any) would be used in support of the various
philosophies. These strategies are based on statistics and
probability, so expect equations and calculations. His overall
conclusion, not surprisingly, is that one's plans should always
provide insurance against losing more than one can afford to.
This struck me as a good explanation of a lot of the basic
workings of stocks and the stock market, but then, I was a math
major.

Our discussion group read Franz Kafka's THE TRIAL (ISBN 0-805-
21040-7) and everyone seemed to have a different opinion. One
thought it surrealist, one thought it an attempt to describe a
dream, one thought it a commentary on Austro-Hungarian
bureaucracy, and so on. My comment was that undoubtedly some high
school student will get their chronology confused and write that
it is a commentary on the Nazis. (For all I know, some high
school student already has.) My feeling was that it was designed
to be dreamlike, but incongruous aspects may have underlying
meaning. For example, the fact that the court seems to meet
behind people's laundry room and so on may be a way of saying that
the courts and the legal system and the government are all-
pervasive.

CRIMINAL KABALLAH edited by Lawrence W. Raphael (ISBN 1-58023-109-
8) is the follow-up to his MYSTERY MIDRASH (reviewed in the
09/17/2004 issue). This was not quite as good an anthology, but
that was in part because several stories were not mysteries but
just stories about crimes or wrong-doing. (It's the problem with
the Sherlock Holmes story "The Veiled Lodger"--there is no
detection involved.) Not a total miss, but not up to the first.
[-ecl]

Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
Sapolsky's Second Law: It's okay to think about
nonsense, as long as you don't believe in it.